Martin,
On 9/1/17 12:36, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
>
> Damien,
>
>> +if (sdkp->max_ws_blocks &&
>> +sdkp->physical_block_size > logical_block_size) {
>> +/*
>> + * Reporting a maximum number of blocks that is not aligned
>> + * on the device physical size would cause a large write same
>> + * request to be split into physically unaligned chunks by
>> + * __blkdev_issue_write_zeroes() and __blkdev_issue_write_same()
>> + * even if the caller of these functions took care to align the
>> + * large request. So make sure the maximum reported is aligned
>> + * to the device physical block size. This is only an optional
>> + * optimization for regular disks, but this is mandatory to
>> + * avoid failure of large write same requests directed at
>> + * sequential write required zones of host-managed ZBC disks.
>> + */
>> +sector_t phys_mask =
>> +bytes_to_logical(sdkp->device,
>> + sdkp->physical_block_size) - 1;
>> +
>> +sdkp->max_ws_blocks &= ~phys_mask;
>> +}
>> +
>> out:
>> blk_queue_max_write_same_sectors(q, sdkp->max_ws_blocks *
>> (logical_block_size >> 9));
>
> ALIGN_DOWN(sdkp->max_ws_blocks, sdkp->physical_block_size)?
Sure. But let's use the same unit then :)
sdkp->max_ws_blocks =
ALIGN_DOWN(sdkp->max_ws_blocks,
bytes_to_logical(sdkp->device, sdkp->physical_block_size));
Isn't it ?
Do you want me to resend ?
Thank you.
--
Damien Le Moal,
Western Digital
